Ex parte GREATLINE et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 1998

07882811 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 14, 1992. 1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MARTIN W. GREATLINE and
STANLEY E. GREATLINE

_____________
Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,8111
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
2
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 16, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A prescription farming control system for use in
controlling product delivery mechanisms mounted on an
applicator vehicle, the delivery mechanisms operable to
deliver product to spreader mechanisms for spreading products
over an agricultural field, each of the product delivery
mechanisms having a device controller which controls the rate
of operation of the corresponding delivery mechanism in
response to a control signal derived in accordance with a
prescription for the field, the control system comprising:
means for storing in a digital memory information
defining a digital map representative of the prescription for
the field, the map being defined by a number of layers, each
layer corresponding to one of the product delivery mechanisms,
and each layer including a number of zones, each zone
corresponding to a rate of application of the corresponding
product in accordance with the prescription for the field at a
plurality of global positions within the zone;
means for storing a data table containing control signal
values for each of said number of zones in each of said number
of layers, said control signal values being indicative of the
rate of application of the product associated with a
corresponding layer at positions of the vehicle within a
corresponding zone;
navigation means for determining the current position of
the applicator vehicle on the agricultural field in global
coordinates as the vehicle moves over the field; and
means for transmitting, to each device controller,
selected ones of said control signal values corresponding to
said zone of each layer for which the determined current
Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
3
position of the vehicle corresponds to one of said plurality
of global positions within the zone.

The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Hanson et al. (Hanson) 5,050,771 Sep. 24,
1991
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 11 to 13, 15 and 16 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hanson.
Claims 2, 3, 6 to 8, 10 and 14 to 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hanson alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 102 and § 103.
Turning first to the rejection of independent claims 1
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each of these claims recites a
navigation means for determining the current position of the
applicator vehicle on the agricultural field in global
coordinates as the vehicle moves over the field. The claims
further recite a means for storing in a digital memory data
Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
4
defining a digital map further defining a number of layers,
each of which has various zones corresponding to a rate of
application of a product at a plurality of global positions
within the zone. Finally, at the end of each claim there is
recited the determination of the current position of the
vehicle corresponding to one of these previously recited
plurality of global positions within each zone.
The examiner’s reliance upon col. 2, lines 55 to 59 of
Hanson to provide a basis for all of these navigation features
is misplaced since we find that the reference does not
disclose or otherwise anticipate all of these features as
referenced in each of independent claims 1 and 13 on appeal.
We recognize as do appellants that every point of a given
field has inherently some associated global coordinates such
as latitude and longitude associated with it. However, there
is no evidence before us that Hanson necessarily, in the sense
of inherency as apparently argued by the examiner, teaches the
associated global coordinates and global positions in his
system as recited in these claims on appeal. Hanson’s system
uses a dead reckoning-type navigation system. The examiner’s
reasoning also appears to bridge over into reasoning
Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
5
appropriate within 35 U.S.C. § 103 but not 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In view of these findings, we reverse the rejection of claims
1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and their respective dependent
claims as set forth by the examiner in the above noted
rejection.
Lastly, independent claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Hanson alone. Even if we accept the basic position
of the examiner, based upon the teaching at col. 2, lines 55
to 59 of Hanson, that a global coordinate type of navigation
system was known in the art and would have been obvious to the
artisan to have utilized in the system of Hanson, we must
reverse the rejection of independent claim 14 because we
remain unconvinced that the teachings and showings within this
reference would have made obvious to the artisan all the
details with respect to the graphics processor in this claim.
At pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the examiner merely asserts
that the display 60 in Fig. 5 and the teaching at the bottom
of col. 8 would have rendered obvious to the artisan the
graphics processor clause and the function of the layer of
maps therewithin. Additionally, at page 5 of the answer, the
examiner admits that Hanson does not teach layers
Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
6
corresponding to delivery mechanisms. The examiner’s
responsive arguments to appellants’ position in the brief at
pages 7 and 8 of the answer also do not convince us of the
obviousness of the subject matter of the graphics processor
clause of claim 14. The examiner does not argue and there is
no apparent teaching or showing in Hanson, for example, of a
graphics memory partitioned with an active invisible page and
an inactive visible page utilized in the manner recited in
this graphic processor clause of claim 14. Therefore, we
remain unconvinced of the obviousness of the subject matter of
independent claim 14 on appeal as a whole without more prior
art evidence than that provided.
Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
7
In view of the foregoing, since we reverse the rejection
of all claims on appeal, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
8
Michael D. Beck
Woodard Emhardt Naughton
Moriarty & McNett
Bank One Center/Tower
111 Monument Circle
Suite 3700
Indianapolis, IN 46204